4. A former Washington Post
reporter insisted that "What every conservative press critic
preaches, and almost every reporter denies, is largely true: the
mainstream press is liberal." For that, he's gang-banged on CNN.

"If you
think the media are too liberal, you've got company. The conservative
Media Research Center site is the home of the Notable Quotables, a
compilation of the 'latest outrageous, sometimes humorous quotes in the
liberal media.'"

2) CNN's Brooks Jackson is usually one of the most balanced and least
gullible reporters on TV, taking on the campaign rhetoric of both sides.
But on Friday's (December 6) Inside Politics he seemed to have let down
his guard.

Sitting beside
substitute anchor Charles Bierbauer, he told viewers: "Well, Charles,
one of the more bizarre episodes may have gotten a little less bizarre
today. Back in October, attention focused on the Buddhist temple in
California where Democrats raised $140,000 in an event attended by Vice
President Al Gore. The Wall Street Journal, back then, quoted a Buddhist
nun who had given $5,000 as saying the money was not hers, that it had
been given to her by the real donor who did not want to be identified. But
that would be illegal, so that was news, embarrassing to the Vice
President and to the Democratic Party. Now, that Buddhist nun has changed
her story and is saying the money was hers all along. We are told she has
filed a statement with the Federal Election Commission, which is
investigating, saying the money came not from some secret donor but from
her own savings and from offerings of persons who supported her work at
the temple, Charles."

Charles
Bierbauer: "And, why do we suppose Brooks that she might have once
told the Wall Street Journal the money was not hers?"

Jackson:
"We are told in this statement that she didn't know quite how to
handle a call from this national news reporter and told what she hoped,
or thought, was a harmless lie just to get him off the phone. Turns out
it was not so harmless."

How about a more
logical scenario: When called by the reporter she innocently told the
truth. After DNC lawyers panicked they came up with a legal explanation.
Indeed, the December 2 Wall Street Journal reported that "Democratic
lawyer Peter Kelly" became "closely involved with"
allegations "that fraudulent contributions may have been made to the
Democratic Party during a fundraising event at a Buddhist temple in
California.

"Mr. Kelly
is a prominent Democratic fundraiser himself and attended the temple
event. After the controversy broke, he emerged as the temple's
lawyer...On the day that this newspaper published a front page article
quoting a Buddhist monk, Man Yah Shih, saying she gave $5,000 at the
fundraiser with money that wasn't hers, Mr. Kelly called the woman and
questioned her and was told subsequently the same thing. Ms. Shih then
left her temple for a 'retreat' overseas, from which she didn't return
until after the election. She now won't talk to reporters, referring all
calls to Mr. Kelly."

3) Here's a sentence apparently thought "outlandish" by New York
Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse: "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people."

That's the 10th
Amendment. Here's her take on the Supreme Court's review of the Brady gun
control law. From the December 6 Washington Week in Review on PBS:

"The Brady
gun control law has been challenged, on of all things, not on gun
control grounds, but on federalism grounds, on states rights grounds,
because the bill has a provision that requires local Sheriffs, the local
law enforcement officials, to do the background checks during the five
day waiting period to make sure a prospective gun purchaser is not a
convicted felon. And the local Sheriffs, backed by the National Rifle
Association, are arguing that this violates states rights because it in
effect is a commandeering by the federal government of the processes of
local government to make the locals officials do the Fed's work. And on
the face of it, it sounds like a sort of outlandish argument, you know,
what local law enforcement officials do is background checks, it's a
very common kind of procedure. But this argument has a lot of force
these days because this case is part on an ongoing review at the court
and in the federal courts generally about the whole relationship between
the state and federal government. So it's quite a potent argument,
actually."

4) Sunday's Reliable Sources showed how the CNN program, which is supposed
to critique the news media, does anything but as panelists pounce on
anyone who dares draw attention to bias.

The December 8
guest panelist: former Washington Post reporter William Powers, fresh from
his inaugural New Republic piece on the media. He's now a Senior Editor of
the magazine. Regulars Marty Schram of Scripps Howard, Bernard (I only own
rust colored ties) Kalb, Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post as well as
Jane Shaw of the Los Angles Times spent an entire segment attacking
Powers. One by one they argued how preposterous they found his thesis.

And what did
Powers assert? In his December 16 New Republic piece he showed how the
networks underplayed the Clinton character issue during the campaign.
After explaining how Clinton staffers convinced network producers to not
air some stories, Powers explained:

"Why,
besides the skill of its practitioners, has the White House 'outreach'
worked so well? Simply put, because Clinton and his people are, to most
journalists, culturally sympathetic. What every conservative press
critic preaches, and almost every reporter denies, is largely true: the
mainstream press is liberal. Most Washington reporters share with the
Clinton aides a language, a value system, a set of buttons. Outrage at,
say, 'partial birth infanticide' is not one of the buttons of this
class. Outrage at 'right-wing abortion activists' is.

"When
conservatives huff about the cabal of liberal journalists that is
constantly plotting to slant coverage, they are right about the effects
but wrong about the cause. There is no plotting at all: liberal bias
flows from principles so deeply held they're mostly unconscious. All of
which means that, had a Republican President been up for re-election
this year, facing the same array of ethical problems Clinton faced, the
scandals would have gotten more ink. Recall the alacrity with which the
journalism establishment seized on the sexual allegations against
Clarence Thomas, John Tower and Bob Packwood."

Of course the MRC
has never seen a plot, but it would be nice if some media people of
influence would realize this "unconscious" bias before we put
"former" before their name.

5) Thought you could escape from Bryant Gumbel after January 3, his last
Today day? Friday's New York Post brought bad news. The Post's Josef
Adalian reported:

"There's
an increasingly hard-to- ignore buzz among ABC News staffer that a deal
between soon-to-depart Today show anchor Bryant Gumbel and ABC could be
a match made in Nielsen heaven....Over the last few days speculation
among ABC News insiders has become commonplace that...network execs are
more than willing to guarantee Gumbel a 10pm Thursday newsmagazine
showcase on ABC."

Federal employees and military personnel can donate to the Media Research Center through the Combined Federal Campaign or CFC. To donate to the MRC, use CFC #12489. Visit the CFC website for more information about giving opportunities in your workplace.